Garcia v. Williams et al

Filing
19

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 15 petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 18 petitioner's motion for an extension of time is GRANTED. Petitioner's response to 11 respondents' motion to dismiss is due on or before 4/27/2018. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
DENNIS R. GARCIA,
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
15
2:17-cv-00485-JCM-GWF
ORDER
On December 29, 1017, petitioner Garcia filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF
16
No. 15. This court denied Garcia' prior motion for appointment of counsel in its initial screening
17
order. ECF No. 8.
18
Having considered Garcia’s points and authorities and reviewed his filings in this case, the
19
court stands by its decision to deny appointment counsel. As noted in the court's prior order, there is
20
no constitutional right to counsel in a habeas proceeding. Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 429 (9th
21
Cir. 1993). "Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to appointed
22
counsel unless the circumstances indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process
23
violations." Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023
24
(1987).
25
26
Garcia has failed to show that the complexities of the case are such that denial of appointed
counsel would amount to a denial of due process. In addition, his filings with the court indicate that
1
he understands the issues and is capable of presenting his arguments to the court. See LaMere v.
2
Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming the denial of the appointment of counsel where a
3
petitioner's pleadings demonstrated a good understanding of the issues and an ability to present
4
contentions "forcefully and coherently").
5
6
7
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF
No. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No.
8
18) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s response to respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is due on
9
or before April 27, 2018.
10
March 8, 2018.
Dated this ______ day of March, 2018.
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.